Skip to main content

About your Search

20110726
20110726
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
of honorable and distinguished service, but the fact remains that the fundamental realities in afghanistan haven't changed. "the new york times" put it plainly, noting that the general is, and i quote them, "the general is leaving behind a country racked by deep political instability whose fledging security forces are fighting a weakened but deadly insurgency that kills coalition troops and afghan civilians and officials nearly every day." that's a pretty damning assessment, mr. speaker, and it's accurate. in recent weeks two of president karzai's most powerful allies, including his brother, have been gunned down by the taliban. and ordinary afghan citizens are caught in the line of fire as never, never before. the u.n. recently reported that more afghan civilians were killed in the first half of 2011 than in any other six-month period since the war began. some these casualties are the accidental result of errant attacks and night raids by u.s. and nato forces. but the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths came at the hands of insurgents often using suicide bombers. there were nearly 1,
savings on the mandatory side and savings from winding down the war in iraq and afghanistan. these are savings that cbo scores of about a trillion dollars, that cbo scoring them at a trillion dollars. now we know some republicans will quibble over the savings but they have no leg to stand on. though war is the second-biggest policy driver of the deficit after the bush tax cuts. if conducting the war ads to the debt, it is undeniable winding down the war deliver savings. the administration tells us with the wind down their putting in place in the iraq and afghanistan, they can prosecute the war on about $630 billion over the next decade. cbo, however, assumes 1.67 trillion in war funding for 2021. by adopting the administration's lower number, we can save over a trillion. we know the republicans agree with this because they included the exact same savings in the wrong and budget that passed the house. i never criticized such accounting then and it's hard to see how they could do so now. last, senator reid's proposal allows a joint committee that has the potential to achieve e
-- the other factor is that we are now drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way
in afghanistan. their home owners association now suing them claiming the sign violates community rules. but jodi burr says they're being treated differently than other home owners in the area that have different signs posted. she's my guest. good morning to you. >> good morning. so tell me, your son is currently serving in afghanistan. he's 20-year-old cory burr. tell me when you decided to put up this sign in your yard. >> we did it soosz he as soon a deployed. >> when was that? >> in january. we're looking at pictures of your sign here and it talks about the fact that your son is fighting for our freedom. we love you and we miss you. what's offensive about that? >> that's the big question in all of this. we don't know. we've just been asked to remove the sign. >> so you actually had a letter from the home owners association from your subdivision, is that how you found out that they were going to ask you to remove it first or did the letter say we're automatically going to sue you? >> no, ma'am, the letters asked for removal. i received three letters asking for removal and we immediately r
were meant to go to taliban militants in afghanistan. one indictment describes a heroin deal that have grew into a $9.5 million arm sell. an ooatheist group is suing to block the display of the world trade center cross. they say the cross display is, quote, an inpermissible mingling of church and state. it consists of two steel beams. it was found in the wreckage and moved to the memorial on saturday. and one year after the worst oil spill in u.s. history, bp's bottom line is pretty good. the company announced $5.3 billion in second quarter profits. that's a $22 million turnaround from the same period last year. $22 million swing the other way. and now they're posting $5 billion profit. >> a lot of people are going to be looking at the second quarter profits. >>> player or spectator? the president's changing role in the debt talks and whether he can really be sidelined plus, fast and furious. why a controversial gun program is sparking new outrage today in congress. you see, airline cres promise flights for 25,000 miles, but... [ man ] there's never any seats for 25,000 miles. frustrat
to advocate for people who are being persecuted because they're christians whether it be in afghanistan, pakistan or egypt. and the two questions that i have, how many connections have there been -- convictions have there been over the last several years, do you have any -- and how many occasions do you know where the american embassy has advocated for these cases? generally, when there's a problem, members go to the embassy, they advocate it. how many times has the american embassy participate and been involved in any different cases? >> thank you very much, mr. wolf. there have been, in the 50 cases i was involved with personally, there were two investigations, neither investigation resulted in any legal process, so there are no convictions, um, resulting as of, as of complaints to the effective kidnappings, forced marriages and forced converses of coptic christian women. to my knowledge, also, and according to my research the u.s. embassy has not advocated on behalf of these women. >> one last thing, mr. chairman. as you have this record, i urge you to send it to leon panetta. our mi
down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of thelan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the w is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trlion. and another thing that's scored in tt, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is phantom money,
of that is what senator reid calls the winding down of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. that will save a trillion dollars. now republicans have called that a gimmick, a savings from wars that are winding down, even though, by the way, the same savings were counted in some republican budgets. reid's plan would not reform or cut medicare, medicaid, social security. also no changes to taxes. it would raise the debt ceiling by 2.4 trillion dollars. that would be enough to fund the government through next year's election. the boehner plan is considered more short term. it would raise the debt ceiling in two different steps. the first step would happen immediately raising the ceiling by a trillion dollars and spending cuts of 1.2 trillion over ten years. and get us to next year, right some we need a second vote to raise the debt ceiling again by another $1.6 trillion. that second increase would be contingent on more cuts. another $1.8 trillion in spending cuts and have to be agreed to by a bipartisan committee. >> so far, the debt stalemate has been a drag on the stock markets but not as bad as some of
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)